What if the solution to our housing crisis isn't more walls, but fewer?
The concept of co-living, where people choose to share living spaces and resources while maintaining private quarters, is no longer a niche lifestyle choice.
Why it matters: Rising housing costs, shifting work patterns, and an increasing desire for community have helped make co-living a mainstream housing option.
We asked Irene Pereyra, designer and co-founder of Anton & Irene, about what’s next for shared living spaces. Pereyra brings unique insight into co-living—she grew up in a communal house in Amsterdam and later created the interactive documentary One Shared House based on this experience. Her expertise led to a collaboration with IKEA's future-living lab SPACE10 on One Shared House 2030, a global research project that surveys how people envision sharing their homes in the future.
What cultural or economic shifts are driving renewed interest in co-living models?
Co-living isn’t new, it’s just been rebranded to sound less like a hippie community and more like a lifestyle choice. But it’s driven by real issues:
Housing is unaffordable for most people under 40
Cities are denser, but we’re lonelier than ever
Remote work is the norm
Traditional social structures? Fading fast
As part of the work for the documentary and IKEA line, we ran a global survey to find out what spaces people actually want to share. Only about 1% of respondents said they didn’t want to share anything at all. We need to start thinking more intelligently about how to share underutilized spaces:
Gardens
Kitchens
Outdoor areas
Study rooms
Laundry rooms
How can thoughtful design make shared living spaces feel both private and personal?
Privacy isn’t just about closing a door. It’s about scale, flow, and the ability to disappear without announcing it.
Smaller groups (8–15 people)? Less privacy. Everyone knows when you're home, what you’re eating, who you’re with.
Once you hit ~50+ residents, something shifts: soft invisibility. You blend in, choose when to engage — or not.
That’s where design matters:
Shared spaces need rhythm.
People should drift in/out without friction.
And just as important: ways to opt out entirely.
Think: a hallway that skips the kitchen. A shortcut to your room. A way to grab coffee without five conversations.
It’s about architectural permission to say, “not right now.”
Do you see co-living as a short-term solution to housing affordability—or a long-term shift in how we live?
If you only look at rent prices, it’s easy to think co-living is a temporary fix for a broken housing market. But the real barrier isn’t cultural — it’s structural. We haven’t figured out the financial model:
Can a home’s legal structure allow reconfiguration over time?
What happens when someone wants out — can they sell their share?
Who decides who moves in next?
What if someone needs more space?
What happens when kids move out?
These aren’t edge cases — they’re the reality of long-term living.
Right now, we’re trying to force a new way of living into old systems that weren’t built for it.
Until we design legal, financial, and spatial frameworks that can adapt to real life, co-living will stay fragile — more concept than solution.
But if we get it right?
Co-living could offer what the current housing model can’t: flexibility, and more value for your money.
What are some overlooked benefits (or drawbacks) of co-living that people often miss in the conversation?
Everyone talks about affordability.
But the deeper benefit is the informal support network that naturally forms.
It looks like this:
Someone keeps an eye on your kid so you can take a break
You’re not the only one making life run smoothly
There’s someone to take you to the hospital in an emergency
That kind of support is rare in modern urban life — and deeply human.
But it doesn’t just happen.
If no one thinks about how emotional and practical labor is shared,
It falls on the same people, again and again
Support turns into burden
Community breaks down
That’s where thoughtful design comes in. Not just of the architecture, but of the agreements and norms that make the system fair. That kind of soft infrastructure is hard to design for, but it’s what makes co-living sustainable over time.
Co-living spaces are often ideal for digital nomads—but what about families? Can shared living environments work for them too, or are there limits to how adaptable co-living can be?
Yes — just not in dorms with nicer furniture. The key:
Stop assuming everyone wants the same thing at every life stage
For parents:
You stop building a "village" from WhatsApp groups and weekend playdates – you live in one
You get space — mentally and physically — because your kid isn’t always glued to you
For kids:
They’re not age-segregated like in school
They learn from older kids and teach younger ones
They see a broader range of adult role models
They watch how a mini society works — boundaries, chores, meals, power dynamics
It’s messy, imperfect, and real — but it’s a kind of learning the nuclear family can’t offer
On a personal note, since I grew up in a communal house in the center of Amsterdam with multiple children and various adults, I saw the upsides and the friction points up close. It wasn’t utopia, but it worked. And when I think about what the alternative would’ve been, just my mother and me, alone in a small apartment on the outskirts of the city, I wouldn’t trade it for the world. It gave me a front-row seat to how people live together, for better or worse. And that kind of experience doesn’t just stay with you, it shapes how you move through the world as an adult later on.
It teaches you to be more empathetic, more tolerant, and to see beyond your own experience. And honestly, I think the world could use more of that right now.
